17-40L or 10-22?

EF-S 10-22 samples

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2139301&p​ostcount=1
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=2129087&pos​tcount=203
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=1961083&pos​tcount=202

17-40 f/4L samples

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=2081864&pos​tcount=125
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2080590&p​ostcount=1
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2134538&p​ostcount=1

wide angle lenses are so much fun! I'd hit the 10-22 in a jiffy! It's a hidden L lens.

Thanks Bluedog! I enjoyed all of the images (good color, sharpness, and composition), but I like the 17-40's better. I'm really confused now.

I have both lenses and find myself using the 17-40 more often. I used the 10-22 for a trip to Arizona and yes, wide angle is great and you get get so much more in the picture. Be careful though, because those mountains that looked so impressive, don't always look that way at 10mm. Also if you tilt the lens up or down to add more foreground or sky, then any trees in the image get majorly distorted and looks like crap. A wide angle is great and I'm glad I have the lens for that moment when I really need to be wide, but I take more pictures with the 17-40 and it gives great quality.

my 2 cents.

Your welcome XTuzer _ and I agree with snavlee totally as the 17-40 gets more use but the 10-22 is nice when needed.

I'm going with the 17-40, and I thank everyone for the information.

I know its tough, but that is a good choice XTuzer. You will enjoy this lens very much.

Looking forward to seeing some pics!

Good choice IMO. I had both when I had my 350d and I found the 10-22 a little drastic, when I first got it I found myself going to 10mm 'because I could'. When I got used to it I'd say 15mm was the average.
Plus the 17-40 is a great walkabout lens with a x1.6 crop, sharp wide open too unlike the 10-22 and less edge distortion.
Go for it!

I found the 10-22 extremely useful on a recent trip to NYC, but agree, it's a bit of a specialty lens. I almost prefer stitching landscape panoramas together than going WA, but it still has it's place for those sort of shots.

NYC Shots with the 10-22: http://www.photography​-on-the.net …php?p=1854873&p​ostcount=1

That said, the 17-40 should double as a nice walk-around lens whereas the 10-22 would not.

I realize that cost may be prohibitive...but no one mentioned the 16-36L. 2.8 may come in value for indoor work and is certainly fine glass for landscapes as well.

jcpoulin wrote in post #2171868
I realize that cost may be prohibitive...but no one mentioned the 16-36L. 2.8 may come in value for indoor work and is certainly fine glass for landscapes as well.

he could get the 10-22 and the 17-40L for the cost of the the 16-35L .

ed rader

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2165636
I have the Hoya Super Pro1 Digital Circular Polarizer (slim type) and NO vignetting at all, not even at 10mm ...

Thats funny as we are using the same filter, and I've had a real problem in the 10-12 mm range. When I get a chance I'll post some examples.

mxwphoto wrote in post #2166215
At such wide angles, does the lens hood do anything other than maybe the occasional concussion protection? The hood looks pretty darn thin. And using a polarizer becomes a lot easier without the hood getting in the way of your hand.

The hood on the 10-22 provides protection and its shallow enough that its possible to use the polarizing filter without too mush difficulty. I like taking a lot of landscape shots into the sun and the filter definately helps reduce flare. You need the proper hood though (I accidentally put the hood from my 24-105 on the 10-22 and it was vissible in all the wide open shots)!!

sugarzebra wrote in post #2171947
Thats funny as we are using the same filter, and I've had a real problem in the 10-12 mm range. When I get a chance I'll post some examples.

Please do as I'd be curious to see those results with the EXIF data also. PM me in case I miss your post.

ed rader wrote in post #2171912
he could get the 10-22 and the 17-40L for the cost of the the 16-35L .

ed rader

Thats nice, but neither offer f2.8...which was my only point.